No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
Admiration for the quality and appearance of Greek pottery, and interest in the subject matter of the figured scenes, have until recently tended to draw attention away from other aspects of the study. In reaction to what is seen as an overemphasis on attribution, both of painters and of potters, one approach which has been adopted is to consider the organization of the shops which produced the pottery, to see the pottery in its sociological context. Talk of ‘pupils’, ‘masters’, ‘influence’ etc. presupposes that we know the arrangements under which the potters and painters worked, but hard facts are few.
There is evidence from excavated kilns, but the workshops which lay nearby and their spatial organization are less well known. The Potters’ Quarter at Corinth gives a better idea than other sites of this aspect, but there are no kilns there, and we do not know how typical the Potters’ Quarter was - there were other areas of production at Corinth.
1. See Arafat, K. and Morgan, C., ‘Pots and Potters in Athens and Corinth: a review’, OJA 8 (1989), 31-16Google Scholar.
2. For organization, see Peacock, D. P. S., Pottery in the Roman World: an ethno-archaeological approach (London, 1982)Google Scholar; Scheibler, I., Griechische Töpferkunst (Munich, 1983)Google Scholar; Jones, R. E., Greek and Cypriot Pottery, a review of Scientific Studies (Athens, 1986)Google Scholar; Rice, P. M., Pottery Analysis, a sourcebook (Chicago, 1987)Google Scholar; K. Arafat and C. Morgan (n. 1, above), 314-7, 321-5 and 342, n. 2 (for new kilns found in Athens). There is also a new edition of Noble, J. V., The Techniques of Painted Attic Pottery (London, 1988)Google Scholar.
3. Stillwell, A. N., The Potters’ Quarter: The Pottery, Corinth XV, part iii, ed. Benson, J. L. (Princeton, 1984)Google Scholar.
4. Found in Hermes Steet at the end of the last century (Beazley, ARV2 , 1510-11).
5. J. D. Beazley, ‘Potter and Painter in ancient Athens’, Beazley Lectures, pp. 39-59, 109-16, pls. 25-32; Ziomecki, J., Les représentations d’artisans sur les vases antiques (Warsaw, 1975)Google Scholar; Kehrberg, I., ‘The potter-painter’s wife’, Hephaistos 4 (1982), 25–35, pl. 1 Google Scholar; N. Cuomo di Caprio, ‘Pottery kilns on pinakes from Corinth’, Amsterdam Symposium, pp. 72-82; K. Arafat and C. Morgan (n. 1, above), 317-9.
6. Cook, R. M., ‘Die Bedeutung der bemalten Keramik für den griechischen Handel’, JDAI 74 (1959), 114-23Google Scholar; K. Arafat and C. Morgan (n. 1, above), 326-9 and 320-1 (Exekias v. Amasis); Beazley, ARV2, pp. 877-9 (Penthesilea Workshop). For Euphronios versus Euthymides, see G. Neumann, ‘Zu einigen Beischriften auf Münchener Vasen’, AA 1977, 39-41, figs. 2a-3b and Linfert, A., ‘Zwei Versuche über antiken Witz und Esprit’, Rivista di Archeologia 1 (1977), 19–22 Google Scholar, fig. 1-4. For a family business, see Hemelrijk, J. L., Caeretan Hydriai (Mainz, 1984), 66-9Google Scholar. On the urban emphasis of painted pottery, see Osborne, R., Classical Landscape with Figures (London, 1987), p. 109 Google Scholar.
7. Quotation from Bothmer, D. von, GettyMJ 9 (1981), 4 Google Scholar; K. Arafat and C. Morgan (n. 1, above), 319-21; J. Mertens, Copenhagen Symposium, 425-30, insists on the importance of those signatures that we have.
10. Some recent articles on distribution and trade: J. Boardman, ‘The Athenian pottery trade’, Expedition 1979, 33-40; D. J. W. Gill, ‘The distribution of Greek vases and long distance trade’, Copenhagen Symposium, pp. 175-85; L. Hannestad, ‘The Athenian potter and the home market’, Copenhagen Symposium, pp. 222-30; Boardman, J., ‘Trade in Greek decorated pottery’, OJA 7 (1988), 27–33 Google Scholar; Gill, D. W. J., ‘Trade in Greek decorated pottery: some corrections’, OJA 7 (1988), 369-70Google Scholar; Boardman, J., ‘The trade figures’, OJA 7 (1988), 371-3Google Scholar.
12. Nikosthenes: Rasmussen, T., ‘Etruscan shapes in Attic pottery’, AK 28 (1985), 33-9Google Scholar, pl. 13; Persian subjects: Vries, K. de, ‘Attic pottery in the Achaemenid Empire’, AJA 81 (1977), 544-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Geniere, J. de la, ‘Les acheteurs des cratères corinthiens’, BCH 112 (1988), 83–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13. For possible slave names, see Brygos, Skythes, Onesimos, Epiktetos, and see Canciani, F., ‘Lydos, der Sklave?’, AK 21(1978), 17–22 Google Scholar, pl. 6.
14. Kerameus ( = of the deme Kerameis), M. J. Vickers, ‘Les vases peints: image ou mirage’, Rouen Colloque, pp. 29-42, esp. 39; ‘Artful crafts: the influence of metalwork on Athenian painted pottery’, JHS 105 (1985), 124-5Google Scholar. For the more traditional view, see Beazley Lectures, pp. 48-9; Webster, T. B. L., Potter and Patron in Classical Athens (London, 1972), pp. 4–7 Google Scholar; Scheibler, I., ‘Griechische Künstlervotive der archaischen Zeit’, MJbK 30 (1979), 7–30 Google Scholar; Johnston, A. W., AJA 89 (1985), 182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Amasis Painter, Papers, pp. 84-5 (Ridgway) and 135-6 (Johnston); K. Arafat and C. Morgan (n. 1, above), 312. See Vickers, M., ‘Imaginary Etruscans: changing perceptions of Etruria since the fifteenth century’, Hephaistos 7/8 (1985-6), 153-68Google Scholar and ‘Value and simplicity: eighteenth-century taste and the study of Greek vases’, Past and Present 116 (1987), 98–137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a view of how the status of painted pottery was falsely (and fraudently) raised in the 18th century.
16. Kanowski, M. G., Containers of Classical Greece: a handbook of shapes (University of Queensland Press, 1984)Google Scholar is useful on the names and uses of the shapes, though the illustrations vary in quality. J. Boardman’s three handbooks on Athenian black- and red-figure (IV, nn. 18-20) have useful chapters and bibliographies on shapes, as does Trendall’s handbook on South Italian (IV, n. 59).
18. C. Cardon, ‘Two omphalos phialai’, GettyMJ b\l (1978-79), 131-8 for clay examples.
19. The arguments for the theory can best be followed in Vickers, M. J., ‘Artful crafts: the influence of metalwork on Athenian painted pottery’, JHS 105 (1985), 102-28CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 4-6; Vickers, M. J. (ed.), Pots and Pans, a Colloquium on Precious Metals and Ceramics (Oxford Series in Islamic Art, 3, Oxford, 1986), pp. 9–30 Google Scholar (Gill), 137-51 (Vickers), 217-23 (Raby and Vickers); Vickers, M., Impey, O. and Allen, J., From Silver to Ceramic (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar; Gill, D. W. J., ‘Expressions of wealth: Greek art and society’, Antiquity 62 (1988), 735-43CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The theory is linked to the downdating of material (see p. 7).
20. The books and articles listed in the previous note contain references to plate; see also especially Higgins, R. A. (ed.), Thracian Treasures from Bulgaria (London, 1976)Google Scholar; Danov, C. M., Antique Tombs in Bulgaria (Sofia, 1980)Google Scholar; Thraker, Gold der, Archäologische Schätze aus Bulgarien (Mainz, 1980)Google Scholar; Fol, A., Nikolov, B. and Hoddinott, R. F., The New Thracian Treasure from Rogozen, Bulgaria (London, 1986)Google Scholar; Cook, B. F. (ed.), The Rogozen Treasure, Papers of the Anglo-Bulgarian Conference 12 March 1987 (London, 1989)Google Scholar; Andronikos, M., Vergina (Athens, 1984)Google Scholar; Artamonov, M. I., Treasures from Sky Man Tombs in the Hermitage Museum, Leningrad (London, 1969)Google Scholar; ‘From the Land of the Skythians’, Special Issue of the Metr. Mus. Art Bull. 32 (1973-74); Piotrovsky, B., Galanina, L., Grach, N., Skythian Art (Oxford and Leningrad, 1987)Google Scholar; Gill, D. W. J., ‘Two new silver shapes from Semibratny (Seven Brothers Tumuli)’, BSA 82 (1987), 47–53 Google Scholar. The silver work is usually considered to be Attic.
21. Tombs and metal, see nn. 19-20 above, and Hoffmann, H., ‘Why did the Greeks need imagery? An anthropological approach to the study of Greek vase-painting’, Hephaistos 9 (1988), 150-3Google Scholar, who considers most painted pottery was made primarily for the tomb or for dedication, not for domestic purposes.
22. Shefton, B. B., ‘Persian gold and Attic black-glaze: Achaemenid influences on Attic pottery of the 5th and 4th centuries B.c.’, Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 21 (1971), 109-11Google Scholar, pls. 20-23, who accepts that some pottery has an effect on metalwork.
23. Ivory: M. J. Vickers, ‘Les vases peints: image ou mirage’, Rouen Colloque, pp. 29-42, figs. 1-7; ‘The influence of exotic materials on Attic white-gound pottery’, Amsterdam Symposium, pp. 88-97. Copper: M. Vickers, ‘Silver, copper and ceramics in ancient Athens’, Pots and Pans (n. 19, above), pp. 137-51.
24. K. Arafat and C. Morgan (n. 1, above), 336 ‘no such thing as bourgeois culture’; ideas ran from the top to the bottom of the social order.
26. M. Robertson, Beazley and Oxford, p. 23.
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
No CrossRef data available.